
United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Recently, anti-Second Amendment extremists have taken to using the phrase “gun reform” when it comes to their agenda. But the term, as was the case when they tried to hijack the term “gun safety,” is clearly misapplied by them. What they are proposing is not reform.
Why is that? Well, the American Heritage Dictionary defines reform as “to improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition.” So, it is fair to ask what would constitute true reform in terms of our Second Amendment rights. It should go without saying that while Eric Swalwell said he was for reform during his campaign, his gun ban agenda is anything but that.
Because wrongfully punishing millions of Americans who had nothing to do with shootings like Parkland, Las Vegas, the Tree of Life Synagogue, or Newtown by infringing on their Second Amendment rights is not reform. Instead, the proper word for what these infringements are is injustice. Those who carry out those horrific acts are the ones who should be penalized – those who have not misused their Second Amendment rights ought to keep them.
If you look down the line at those whose campaigns have lasted longer than Swalwell’s, like Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker, among others, while some call for “reform,” they’re just trying to convince our fellow Americans to go along with the injustices they intend to inflict on law-abiding Americans. So, we have a sense that when anti-Second Amendment extremists call for reform, it’s really about stripping away our rights.
So, what would real reform look like? In this case, we should look towards the “correction of error” and “removal of defects” portions of the definition of “reform.” And the errors that need corrected and the defects that must be removed are quite plentiful. Furthermore, we can sell this reform to our fellow Americans in conjunction with the right approach to defending our rights.
For instance, in an era where cops can handle an average traffic stop in 20 minutes, to include checking for warrants, there is no reason that the National Instant Check System shouldn’t have an answer in the same timeframe. Furthermore, if there is a system to instantly determine if a person is disqualified from even touching a firearm, then it is pretty clear that waiting periods (like California’s) and licensing schemes (like those in New York and New Jersey) have no legitimate purpose. Reform, in this case, is eliminating waiting periods and licensing schemes, not imposing them, which was supported by the likes of Booker and John Hickenlooper.
In one sense, the same can also be said of items covered under the National Firearms Act. If a person’s prohibited status can be quickly ascertained, do we need the convoluted transfer process that is currently the law? Incidentally, since the real “weapons of war” that are so often demonized by anti-Second Amendment extremists are arguably protected by U.S. v. Miller. After all, the select-fire M4 carbine is currently standard issue for the United States military. So the 1986 Hughes Amendment can go, and anti-Second Amendment extremists have a choice: It can go via legislation, or it can go when the Supreme Court hears the case.
When it come to the carrying of firearms, there is room for reform there. In this case, it will be in the sense of abolishing “abuse or malpractice” in the carry laws of some states. “May issue” jurisdictions are in particular need of this type of reform, since they allow the arbitrary denial of the right to bear arms. And national reciprocity should also be included as well – after all, a driver’s license is valid in all 50 states, why shouldn’t a carry permit be valid?
The fact of the matter is, when it comes to “gun reform,” anti-Second Amendment extremists are gaslighting the American people. When it comes down to it, Second Amendment supporters are the ones who are pushing the real “gun reform” in America.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
The 2A calls every able bodied American of proper age, who is not in the loony farm or jail, the militia. Militia also infers the use of military firearms. Back during the revolutionary war the musket and cannon were the military arms of the day. These days a M-4 would be found common place on the field of battle. Gun control has never been about gun control, it’s always been about people control. I have no intention of turning in any firearm I may happen to have. Same thing goes for ammo and magazines. When politicians have to lie in… Read more »
Real gun reform can come in the form of any one of the co-equal branches of the federal government declaring that all gun control statutes violate the preemptive character of the Second Amendment, and are null and void.
Harold just doesn’t get it. ANY restriction, alteration, superimposed regulation or compromise on the 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional, illegal and wrong. Harold is more concerned with being politically correct and not offending the gun control leftists and getting them to change their minds, which is NOT possible, than an effective defense of the 2nd Amendment. Being polite to rude people, being logical with illogical people and using common sense with people with no common sense is a monumental waste of time, money and effort. NO compromise in defense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd Amendment, anything… Read more »
True gun reform would be the total repeal of all un Constitutional gun laws,which is each and every one of them.
Our Second Amendment Rights do not need reform.
They need to be RESTORED.
Removal of all infringements that have been placed upon them.
Harold offers cover for two enemies of the 2nd. -Booker and Hickenlooper.
Harold once again proves two things – He thinks we are stupid, He is not on our side.
“So, it is fair to ask what would constitute true reform in terms of our Second Amendment rights.”
You miss the point. To them, rights don’t enter into it; they seek to reform the manner and force with which they destroy gun ownership.
Since the real purpose of all current “gun control” is to deny or at least make gun ownership too expensive and thus encourage golf club membership. Years ago this was aimed almost exclusively at minorities. Today we are all discouraged.
A great question was asked as the title of this article, “What Would Real Gun Reform Look Like?”, and, as usual, this question was not remotely answered. The fact of the matter is that the answer was already thought out, at least to a large degree, and written into the Second Amendment. There is no way to oppose evil except with ready and superior force. The only ones that can provide this powerful and ready opposition, and the only ones who rightly control it, are the good citizens themselves. The whole idea that only government should provide that opposing force,… Read more »
quote: “after all, a driver’s license is valid in all 50 states, why shouldn’t a carry permit be valid?” driving a big machine is a priviledge. Our firearms are a guaranteed RIGHT. Why is a Mother May I Card to carry a firearm, already a God-given RIGHT, even necessary? The Supreme Court determined that a very small “poll tax”, a fee paid to some government agency as a precondition to one’s exercising their RIGHT to vote, is an unconstitutional infringement. WHY is not the paying of a fee to a state government also an unconstitutional preconditioin to the exercise of… Read more »
Think about this. Who is it generally restrictive gun laws really effect or should we ask assist? Those who obey laws or those who do not obey laws? It effects those who obey laws right? and who is it those laws assist those who do not obey the laws? Of course that is right. So the second part of that question is who then benefits from restrictive gun laws the most if law abiding citizens obey the law and give up their guns and the criminals do not. Who is disarmed? It is not the criminal is it? So restrictive… Read more »